Baby George was officially registered as a member of the Royal Family yesterday – with his mum’s “occupation” given as princess rather than duchess.

The formalities of recording his birth were taken care of by his dad, the Duke of Cambridge.

But the reference to Kate as a princess is unusual, as she rarely uses the title Princess William of Wales, which she took when she married in 2011.

She generally sticks to Duchess of Cambridge for royal engagements. But sources say she was probably listed as princess on the birth certificate because it is the more senior title.

Prince William signed the birth register for his newborn son, giving his full name as His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of CambridgeNew parents: Kate and William welcomed baby George last week New parents: Kate and William welcomed baby George last weekGetty Images

Baby George was officially registered as a member of the Royal Family yesterday – with his mum’s “occupation” given as princess rather than duchess.

The formalities of recording his birth were taken care of by his dad, the Duke of Cambridge.

But the reference to Kate as a princess is unusual, as she rarely uses the title Princess William of Wales, which she took when she married in 2011.

She generally sticks to Duchess of Cambridge for royal engagements. But sources say she was probably listed as princess on the birth certificate because it is the more senior title.

Unsurprisingly, Wills, 31, did not have to queue with other parents at Westminster register office to complete the paperwork for their first child.

Instead registrar Alison Cathcart travelled to Kensington Palace, where he was waiting having left the latest addition to The Firm – and third in line to the throne – in the loving arms of new mum Kate, 31, and her proud parents, Carole and Michael Middleton, at their home in Bucklebury, Berkshire.

The birth certificate confirmed that Catherine Elizabeth and William Arthur Philip Louis, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, had a son, George Alexander Louis, born at St Mary’s hospital in Paddington, Westminster, on July 22.

Ms Cathcart, who filled in the details before William signed the form, described her involvement in recording the birth as “a great pleasure” and privilege.

She said: “We also registered the birth of the Queen and Prince Charles and princes William and Harry, so it’s great to see that tradition continue.”

This weekend William is due to take part in a charity polo match with Harry in Ascot, Berks, before returning to work next week as a search and rescue pilot based at RAF Valley on Anglesey, North Wales, after two weeks’ paternity leave.

Interesting questions emerge.

But is she princess of great Britain and Ireland?

The United Kingdom is a Corporation.Great Britain and Ireland are not.

So its a 'tradition' rather than a lawful requirement then?

What about the other parasites within the family, it makes no mention of them being registered, but then they are way down the list for the main job.

Companies house requires notification when new directors and CEO's are appointed, is this what is happening here?

We plebs are told that registration grants us access to benefits such as NHS and so on. It also helps keep an accurate count of the people within the UK.

"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".

She is a princess of Great Britain and N.Ireland.Eire is a republic.The tradition was referring to the place where the registration was taking place rather than the act of registration.

I suspect that their registration is precisely the same as the general public's - with one huge difference; they will know exactly what their Legal Fiction is and how to use/benefit from it, thus, it will never be used against them. Of course this is just a deduction and I could be totally wrong.

So what it's saying is that "prince" and "princess" are office titles within the U.K and William and Catherine are employees of the U.K - as we are all assumed to be.

Thinking about it, it makes no sense for a geographical region such as Great Britain to have a "king". How can land have a "king"? Clearly it cannot. Only people, or fictions created by people, can have kings, queens etc.The corporation, or rather the head of the corporation, "king" or "president", can claim jurisdiction over a geographical area, but it has no right at all to claim that everyone in that area belongs to it simply because they were born there - hence the U.K requires the consent of the governed and our parents consent for us (unwittingly) when we are babies. I bet William was far from unwitting.

The Royal Family - A bunch of decorative slaves, yet are handsomely paid slaves to appear as if they are the all rich and powerful "rulers" and that they are where the buck stops. They don't want people looking beyond police or politicians being the rulers, let alone the Royal Family, but they peddle the Royal Family's importance to us every now and then by highlighting some ridiculous "over-ruled" situation involving government. That's why we get the "Charles veto angle" or about the queens recent signing of a law. It's all fictional nonsense. They're rule was overtaken a long time ago.

It's clear that the Royal Family are simply assistant/vice owners of the corporation known as United Kingdom who get to put on performances for the peasants/slaves who are then given good luxurious wealth and protection for it (a kind of compensation if you will by the owners of Great Britain) I guess this is why William is painted as a shining saviour of all that is good, while his brother is painted as the weed smoking, nazi racist rebel unfit for royalty. You can make others out to be even greater by contrast - Like how an average looking girl hangs with ugly fat girls to make herself look prettier by comparison.

Didn't mean to go off topic there, but it looks as though Royal Family are just as much slaves as you or I, the only difference being that they rake in a lot more fictitious money for it

Interesting to hear the phrase "more senior title".Just the other day I heard someone say Wales was always a Kingdom. So Charles can't be top dog there, he's a junior.

Prince of the UK makes sense to me. They have no real claim on anything, its just like CEO or Public Relations Officer, that's the job title and it comes with the pay and the authority that any CEO would have. Nowt to do with anyone who isn't a citizen of the UK. Fascinating that the NoStateProjectUK had a win asking for evidence that the AKUSED was within the UK. Its a fiction, a person (like Tesco is).

I think we should be taking a good firm hold of our own PERSONS and removing them from the UK, or removing the illusion that we were ever in it. Asking for a list of services they provide in order to avoid a "usage of trade" obligation would be a good start. I noticed its "National Insurance" that pays for a pension. That's about a Nation not a society. Creditors in Commerce touched on the idea of NON CITIZEN NATIONAL STATUS. Before they all went to prison forever that is!

Also Jobseekers allowance applies to "Jobseekers" not persons within the UK. Look at those UN rights again....EVERYONE is entitled to protection against periods of unemployment.

They used to have a King of England. Now they have flags and costumes, stage craft, it's a freaking PANTOMIME! The KING, he's behind you!

And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger